rogue3542

I don't buy the "too big to fail" argument here. I'm in total agreement that the NCAA probably wouldn't hurt any of their cash cows, but this is the FBI, not the NCAA, and they're all about taking down the "too big to fail" guys. In fact, I'd put good money on it that there are several agents pulling out all the stops to get to those "big fish" as it would be a career-making bust for them.

Even so, they can only at most tie with OSU for second, and since OSU won the head-to-head, it's more like they finished third than second.

I'll play devil's advocate here. Lagow was good in the second quarter, but he was equally as bad in the first, and was largely responsible for the first three or four drives stalling. He's had more than one "poor throw" in this game, though he is currently rolling so I hope it continues into the second half.

Whether the classes were specifically for athletes is largely immaterial. Many athletes utilized this to stay eligible. That, in and of itself, is an impermissible benefit. What the NCAA should have done is revoked UNC's membership in the NCAA, regardless if they knew it was going to stick or be fought through appeal.

I think all of the turnovers and mistakes against Ohio State and Penn State have overshadowed just how good the defense has become. I don't care if it was an FCS team - holding a team scoreless and with ZERO passing yards or completions is something I never thought I'd see from an IU team.

Did you see the OSU crowd today? Leaving early because your team is dishing out a beating to an obviously inferior opponent in 90 degree heat and direct sunlight is a non-problem in my book. Not that IU hasn't had problems with students leaving at halftime...

After watching the game, I think Ramsey is the real deal, and he made some really good throws without turning it over or forcing it, too.

The only thing these two programs prove is that money is the ultimate power in our society.

It's been an ugly game so far if you are pulling for Lake Central, which I am. 

This is spot-on, and I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed this.  The only story here is the writer's agenda.  With his glaring bias, one cannot expect him to use quotations objectively or to ask questions that do not serve his agenda; rather, he will use snippets of quotes and ask questions which lead him to his purpose: admonish college basketball for taking advantage of players.